Funny, funny. Chookwatcher rebuked itself this week over a comment made by one of the many moderators using the same chookwatcher pseudonym.
That is, it would be funny if it weren’t so typical of the bad-tempered way in which dissenting commenters are treated when they criticise the critics over at the chookpen.
Here’s what commenter Rachel said about the chookwatchers‘ general attitude in a comment that reflects what many have said in their ‘Feedback’ section.
‘I have to say I find it hard to believe that this site is run by actual followers of Jesus. The attacks on Christians reminds me of the religious ones who attacked Jesus for hanging out with sinners and being ‘ungodly’. But they really didn’t know God themselves. Because if they did this site would be to pray for and bless the Houstons. If Jesus commanded to love your enemies (which the houstons are not) then that’s what it should be
As the bible says those who confess Jesus as savior are saying it from the Holy Spirit and that is what they are doing. I know hundreds of people especially working in entertainment who are now believers and followers of Jesus because of Hillsong. If you think thats the enemy then I don’t know whose side you are really on. Jesus said people would know His real followers by their love for one another and his biggest prayer was that all Christians become one.
I honestly believe this website is causing dissension between believers and more division and does not sound loving at all. Therefore I can’t believe it is run by someone who really knows Jesus but rather was raised with a harsh religious upbringing. And for this I pray the God of love will reveal Himself to you and His great love for you and for others which Jesus said sums it all up! God does love you and doesn’t see you as harshly as you probably judge yourself.’
Fair comment, really, and quite controlled in the circumstances. Chookwatcher sites tend to have extremely negative posts, articles and comments from the local supporter’s club.
Critics who can’t take criticism are hypo-critics
So what was chookwatcher number one’s response? A gentle acceptance of the complaint? A mia culpa moment admitting that some comments and critiques can be overly expressive of a negative perspective?
No, not at all. Chookwatcher came back with the following snarky response, illustrating perfectly the kind of attitude he has most of the time on the myriad blogs he authors.
‘Rachel – we find it hard you even know or even how to love Jesus Christ with the absolute vile that rolled off your tongue in the above post.
You are no different to what Jesus said of the Pharisees:
“For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
You have no idea who you are defending. The people we are monitoring are more corrupt and hostile than you think – material we can’t even publish here due to the nature of some cases. So if you really want to stand with such deviants, then that is your call.
We have never stopped pointing people to Christ and to get them in the scripture.
Those we monitor clearly don’t – and you stand with them. They can hang with many “sinners” as they want but they are leading them to a “Jesus” that is destined for hell.
“Jesus said people would know His real followers by their love for one another and his biggest prayer was that all Christians become one.”
And God said that people blaspheme Him because of unregenerates like you. You need to repent or stop calling yourself a Christian. Your brainwashed response is nothing more than demonstrating you do NOT know God or His Word. You are believing what liars and frauds are telling you to believe about God because you are too lazy to read your bible.’
Notice chookwatcher uses the ‘we’ affirmation, indicating that he is not speaking on his own behalf, but representing all the other moderators who use the chookwatcher epithet.
So, despite not knowing who Rachel is, or what her church affiliation is, chookwatcher fires off a salvo worthy of the adversary himself.
Defensive or offensive?
I don’t know about you, but to me this is indicative of a person with an overly defensive sense of insecurity.
There has never been an ounce of hostility demonstrated by the people chookwatcher defames at any time. The very strongest anyone has been towards chookwatcher is to be dismissive of their relevance, or tongue in cheek incredulous at their anonymous ramblings.
All of the groups targeted by chookwatcher are subsequently thriving and just getting on with putting out the good news regardless of hapless critics.
But to call a person who gives a defence of the members of Hillsong a child of the devil is so preposterous, and, in its way, verbally malicious, that it tells the reader that chookwatcher has serious problems with understanding the basic teaching of Christ, especially when it comes to communicating with other people and walking in the kind of love Jesus was talking about in scripture.
Chookwatcher seems to think love is entirely represented by an attitude of religiously pious rebuke and negative criticism of anyone with a different point of view to his own.
One little criticism of the methodology of the chookwatcher clan results in them going for the jugular with a wall of ad hominem accusations.
Chookwatcher even calls Rachel an unregenerate. On what basis? On the basis that Rachel called chookwatcher out for being overly hostile towards Hillsong.
As it turns out, chookwatcher number two did not agree with chookwatcher number one and, following a rebuke of chookwatcher number one by another commenter, chookwatcher number two adds the following to the thread…
‘There are a team of moderators posting as Chookwatcher, and your comment definitely meets with this particular moderator’s approval. Hope that particular moderator takes your advice on board.’
My question to chookwatcher number two is, why do you associate with this kind of tripe in the first place?